Cable girds for wireless fight

(continued from previous page)

providers half as often as those who subscribe to just one.

"Telephony is a way to protect our high-speed Internet and cable TV franchises," Brian Roberts, president of cable operator Comcast, said this week during a speech at the National Cable and Telecommunications Association's annual meeting here.

But the Bells have an edge of their own in cell phone services. Three of the four Bells own portions of major U.S. cell phone operators, making it easy for them to introduce a wireless element to the bundle. Verizon Communications is part owner of Verizon Wireless, and BellSouth and SBC both own pieces of No. 1 cellular provider Cingular Wireless.

Qwest, the smallest Bell operator, isn't affiliated with any cell phone companies. It has chosen to resell Sprint cell phone service under its own brand to keep pace.

Now the cable operators that must adapt--a move that promises to inject even more rivalry into a fiercely competitive industry. Mobile network operators have been hit by a spasm of consolidation in the last year that's reduced from six to four the number of nationwide cell phone carriers.

Time Warner Cable plans to resell cell phone operator Sprint's service first on a trial basis, then on a regional or national scale. While it will gain entrance to the market quickly, the so-called mobile virtual network operator, or MVNO, approach isn't the best route for cable operators, because they don't have the absolute control over subscribers that they're used to.

Also, because Cingular and Verizon Wireless are owned and operated by three of the four Bells, they're unlikely to cooperate with cable operators. That leaves T-Mobile USA, whose coverage is the sparsest of the top providers, and Sprint, which by default has been backing most of the MVNOs. Just this week, Sprint signed deals with four regional cable companies: Massillon Cable TV of Ohio; Wave Broadband, serving parts of California and Washington; Blue Ridge Communications in Pennsylvania; and Sunflower Cable of Lawrence, Kan.

"Our progress--surpassing 250,000 customers--clearly illustrates the appetite in the market for these services and the unique position Sprint has established," said Sprint Vice President Jim Patterson.

Cable operators' other wireless options are much more expensive. They could spend tens of billions of dollars building out their own nationwide cell phone networks, including costly spectrum leases. That's unlikely, unless cable operators band together to build a cell phone network, said William Markey, president and general partner of consultancy firm RelevantC.

Operators could also wait for new wireless technologies to mature, allowing them to build a cell phone infrastructure on the cheap. For example, in a few years it might be feasible to string together networks of relatively inexpensive Wi-Fi radios, a short-range wireless radio commonly used to dispense broadband in homes, businesses, public areas and retail outlets.

But U.S. penetration of Wi-Fi hot spots, while in the tens of thousands, is still too meager. Cable operators may want to consider using WiMax, an even more powerful wireless cousin of Wi-Fi, but it would mean a massive investment. "I'm not sure the institutional investors will be up for it," Markey said.

[bdennis410]

Cable vs. Wireless-Bundling is bad policy and bad economics

Ben Chaney discusses the current and pending fights between the Bells and the cable companies, and portrays their justification of "bundling" (offering multiple services like broadband, entertainment, communications and other services) as somehow beneficial to consumers. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, evidence suggests that cable monopolies of their infrastructre and signal delivery costs consumers over twenty Billion dollars a year (That's a "B" folks)in excess of what competitive choice would offer.
Forcing unbundled services is what a free market wants and needs. This leads to more choices at lower prices; it always has and always will. The FCC's reluctance to force competition by allowing competitive access to infrastructure at reasonable and justified rates diminishes the potential for competitors to offer the same monopoly-priced broadband at 40-50% LESS than cable; similarly for DSL, even more so for packaged channels of television and entertainment. It is politics and the political mother's milk of contributions that have delivered this terrible outcome; in the interest of free market conmpetion and capitalist principles we must make sure that monopolistic practices are deregulated out of existance.
Ask any consumer if they think their cable service is "fairly" priced or overpriced; penetration is only at current levels becuase there aren't competitive choices. Monopoly Cable forces subscribers to accept packages that cable then uses to justify the pricing; talk about circular logic!
Imagine if AOL/Time Warner could offer their own entre or a la carte services to cable company subscribers, like AOL offering Broadband services at DSL or true Broadband transmission rates at lower prices? They'd be an overnight success! As would others. The competition would force real "value" pricing at much lower costs than today.
Does anyone really think that the average forty dollar per month charge for Broadband over cable incurs substantial additional cost to the cable company since it is provided over the same cable that already exists and which has been depreciated to zero cost? The modem that is provided is another example(a case in court may determine whether cable can keep it's monopoly over the boxes) of "locking in" a cable customer, keeping out competitive products available at lower cost.
The reasons why bundling and cable, even telephone company, monopolies are such bad ideas, economically and from a marketplace perspective, are just overwhelming.
For the sake of free market competition, choice, and even the future of services we can only imagine today, I hope that we can force regulators and legislators to move forcefully and quickly to end monopolistic practices allowed today.

[bdennis410]

Cable vs. Wireless-Bundling is bad policy and bad economics

Ben Chaney discusses the current and pending fights between the Bells and the cable companies, and portrays their justification of "bundling" (offering multiple services like broadband, entertainment, communications and other services) as somehow beneficial to consumers. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, evidence suggests that cable monopolies of their infrastructre and signal delivery costs consumers over twenty Billion dollars a year (That's a "B" folks)in excess of what competitive choice would offer.
Forcing unbundled services is what a free market wants and needs. This leads to more choices at lower prices; it always has and always will. The FCC's reluctance to force competition by allowing competitive access to infrastructure at reasonable and justified rates diminishes the potential for competitors to offer the same monopoly-priced broadband at 40-50% LESS than cable; similarly for DSL, even more so for packaged channels of television and entertainment. It is politics and the political mother's milk of contributions that have delivered this terrible outcome; in the interest of free market conmpetion and capitalist principles we must make sure that monopolistic practices are deregulated out of existance.
Ask any consumer if they think their cable service is "fairly" priced or overpriced; penetration is only at current levels becuase there aren't competitive choices. Monopoly Cable forces subscribers to accept packages that cable then uses to justify the pricing; talk about circular logic!
Imagine if AOL/Time Warner could offer their own entre or a la carte services to cable company subscribers, like AOL offering Broadband services at DSL or true Broadband transmission rates at lower prices? They'd be an overnight success! As would others. The competition would force real "value" pricing at much lower costs than today.
Does anyone really think that the average forty dollar per month charge for Broadband over cable incurs substantial additional cost to the cable company since it is provided over the same cable that already exists and which has been depreciated to zero cost? The modem that is provided is another example(a case in court may determine whether cable can keep it's monopoly over the boxes) of "locking in" a cable customer, keeping out competitive products available at lower cost.
The reasons why bundling and cable, even telephone company, monopolies are such bad ideas, economically and from a marketplace perspective, are just overwhelming.
For the sake of free market competition, choice, and even the future of services we can only imagine today, I hope that we can force regulators and legislators to move forcefully and quickly to end monopolistic practices allowed today.